Table of contents
- Draft key messages
- Executive summary
- 1 Introduction - 1.1 Scope of theme: Why care about floodplains?
- 1 Introduction - 1.2 The catchment-river-floodplain ecosystem and policies
- 2 Floodplains under pressure - 2.1 Floodplain characteristics and extent
- 2 Floodplains under pressure - 2.2 Current floodplain status in Europe
- 2 Floodplains under pressure 2.3 - Climate change and altered flood risk
- 2 Floodplains under pressure - 2.4 Hydromorphological pressures and alterations
- 2 Floodplains under pressure - 2.5 Pollution pressures
- 3 Improving ecosystem services and measures - 3.1 Ecosystem services
- 3 Improving ecosystem services and measures - 3.2 Measures
- 3 Improving ecosystem services and measures - 3.3 Examples of river and floodplain restoration
- 4 Managing from an ecosystem perspective
- 5 Conclusions and Outlook
- References
- Annex 1 European and Global Policy Context
- Annex 2 Definitions
- Annex 3 Ecosystem service overview
- Annex 4 Measures that improve services
3 Improving ecosystem services and measures - 3.3 Examples of river and floodplain restoration
With increasing awareness, examples of river-floodplain systems restoration measures or works aiming to improve river-floodplain systems function are getting rising. In this sense, here we presented two examples aiming to improve river-floodplain systems conditions. One of them is work from the Danube river basin, which examines river-floodplain restoration potentials and showing broad sense collaboration perspective in the international river basin. The other is the Skjern River Restoration, which is one of the successful examples of river-floodplain restoration measures.
-
"With increasing awareness, examples of river-floodplain systems restoration measures or works aiming to improve river-floodplain systems function are getting rising.": "are getting rising" is an odd expression.
-
"broad sense collaboration perspective": What the heck is that?
-
The Skjern as "one of the successful examples" implies that other examples (e.g. the Danube) are unsuccessful?
-
The Skjern as "one of the successful examples" implies that other examples (e.g. the Danube) are unsuccessful?
Also a question for what successfull. Should be explained precisely.
-
-
Box 4: "Changes in the natural hydrological regimes and geomorphological process" - I would suggest the write "regime" and "processes" instead.
-
Box 4: "km2" with "2" in superscript
-
Either write "ha" or "hectar" throughout the report.
-
Box 4: When writing about floodplain percentages remaining, you should also give percentages of the area of reconnection potential in the sentences below.
-
Box 4, Page 30: The information about the planned measures in given twice above and below the sub-header "Estimated effect of measures ...".
-
Box 4: What does "JPM" stand for?
-
Box 5: The figure's legend is in Danish.
-
Box 5: Remove comma after "10 years of monitoring following the restoration,"
-
Box 6: Remove "provide examples"
-
Box 6: Replace "forrests" by "forests".
-
Write "Flood Risk Management Plans" with upper case first letters throughout the report
-
Box 6: Write "authorities" instead of "autorities"
-
Box 6: Write "although" instead of "all though".
-
What are the key messages and lessions we can learn from these case studies?
Propose to shortly elaborate the common messages which can be extracted from the studies
-
POLAND
box 4, map 1: Overview
incomplete figure
HU
On page 29 of the planned report, Chapter 3.3: 'Examples of river ad floodplain restoration', at the Danube river basin level, for example, Hungarian projects are also missing: e.g. Tisza Floodplain Project (which has also nature conservation works).